Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion. that is substance. so he has not waited for people to start smelling the jet fumes at national airport. he has actively put forward a plan. >> the white house and republicans are ramping up their pr, something significant is happening behind the scenes. both sides appear to be preparing their own basis to eat their vegetables, if you will. in other words, get ready to make some sacrifices on sacred cows that are required for a grand bargain. for republicans that means swallowing changes to the bush-era tax rates and yesterday the first major house republican broke with the party line in a private meeting with the house republican whip team which is responsible for counting the conference's votes. oklahoma congressman tom cole said it's time to immediately extend the bush-era tax cuts which, of course, is what obama is calling for, for households earning less than $250,000 a year. then he later told "the new york times," quote, the first thing i'd do is make sure we don't raise taxes on 98% of the american people. we'll get some credit for that, and it'
the type of serious deficit reform needed to bring down the $16 trillion debt? >> well, you know, i think anytime you're talking about a deficit, there's two ways to bring it down, and i know you know this well. you're either going to raise revenue or have cuts, and i would continue to argue for a balanced approach which means i do think you can find savings in both programs. but what i'm concerned about is what the real agenda is and the real agenda, in my opinion, is to end medicare. i mean, that was certainly a big item in the presidential debate is changing medicare into a voucher program. so what i don't believe in is changing the fundamental structure where we break the guarantee to seniors that we've had in our country for decades. that i disagree with. finding savings, there are certainly ways to do that in both programs, but neither one is going to balance or is going to address the deficit without clearly raising revenue. >> an interesting thing has developed among some of your fellow members in the house, democratic caucus, peter welch of vermont, if a deal is bad, that if it's
to the current debt or the deficit. social security is something that needs to be shored up. it's relatively easy to do compared to the other -- compared to the other problems, but we need to take a balanced approach to the other problems. this idea that we can just -- you know, the american people didn't believe the republican party's nominee who said we can just get rid of some of these deductions. we can get rid of some of the loopholes. that's not going to work. >> i don't understand the, frankly, the contortions being taken by some republicans to avoid raising the tax rate even a point or two at this point. can you explain why it's so important not to raise the rate at all even if it means getting rid of all sorts of deductions? >> because i think you have to say before you raise the rates and say, hey, everyone needs to pay more, we need to look at things we can do to flatten the code, to grow the economy, why would you tell people they have to pay more, small businesses, individuals, before -- >> make them pay more by getting hatch the deductions. >> it makes it flatter and fairer and supp
should address the drivers of the deficit and social security is not currently a driver of the deficit. >> they made that abundant ly clear. when they say entitlement reform it does not include social security and what they define it as. grover norquist is having to defend himself after several prominent senate republicans indicated a willingness to break his famous pledge, arguing republicans who agree to tax hikes just like they did under president bush. >> it is important that the republicans don't have their fingerprints all over the murder weapon, their fingerprints all over a lousy budget deal with tax increases and no real spending, just as happened to republicans in 1990 which cost us the presidency in '92. >> "the wall street journal" defends norquist today writing, quote, the voters are smart enough to know that republicans who focus on mr. norquist are part of the problem. interesting calling out those republicans by the wall street editorial. norquist is a bit of a media creation. remember this. he's an easily digestible symbol of ideological purity. the people who actually
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4